Public Bill Committee

[Sir John Butterfill in the Chair]

Clause 36

Confidentiality of personal information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Healey: We now come to the second, complementary side of arrangements for greater data sharing of administrative information and the confidentiality rather than the disclosure side of the equation. The clause is important because it sets out some of the safeguards for privacy rights that are fundamental to ensuring that people who provide their information can have confidence that the data will be held securely.
The clause specifies that personal information—information identifying individuals or businesses, whether held by the board or passed by the board to others, directly or indirectly—is confidential, with criminal sanctions for anyone found to have unlawfully passed personal information to others or to have revealed personal information.
We discussed in earlier sittings the benefits to be gained from data sharing, and we will return to it in more detail from clause 44 onwards. I shall concentrate on the protections that we need to put in place. Although there is strong public interest in the greater sharing of administrative data, there is an equally important public interest in ensuring that the confidentiality of such data is properly protected. We have attempted to ensure that the Bill strikes an appropriate balance between those two objectives.
As the Government move to a greater era of data sharing—an era, rather, of greater data sharing—to deliver better, more responsive—[Interruption.] There is a little scoff from the hon. Member for Sevenoaks. If one wants better, more responsive and more personalised public services, an element of greater personal data sharing is required and inevitable. What is important in the matter of statistics is the safeguarding and disclosure of those data.

Michael Fallon: I hope that the Minister did not misinterpret my scoff. It was not at the principle of data sharing but at his reference to entry into a greater era. I think those things are probably best left to historians.

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. He picked me up on a slip of the tongue; rather than a greater era, I meant to say—I think I did correct myself—an era of greater information sharing. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to make that crystal clear to the Committee.
In the future, in such an era—greater or otherwise—it will be essential that people are confident that their personal data will be handled appropriately. Statistical surveys often rely on people giving their information voluntarily and even when that is not the case, statisticians need complete and truthful responses on which they can rely and, indeed, on which we can all rely for further analysis.
A statistical system, therefore, needs strong confidentiality safeguards to give individuals and businesses confidence that their personal information will not be disclosed improperly to other partiesfor other purposes. A crucial part of the board’s maintaining its credibility in collecting, analysing and publishing data is that there is the highest protection of such personal information.
The Office for National Statistics—indeed, the Government’s statistical service generally—has a long history of maintaining data confidentiality and already securely holds information including that from census returns, information on employees’ earnings and data on businesses’ profits. However, we are taking the opportunity in the Bill to increase the confidentiality safeguards and sanctions on personal data. On safeguards, the data-sharing arrangements that we propose will be permitted only for statistical purposes, only where they are judged in the public interest and only where permitted by the Bill, including the specific exemptions in clause 36, or by orders under theBill. Any proposed extensions by order must havethe agreement of Ministers and, most importantly,the further scrutiny and agreement of Parliament or the devolved Administrations.
The Bill introduces a criminal sanction for the unlawful disclosure of information concerning both individuals and businesses—whether held by the board, on members and employees, or by anyone to whom the board has passed the data on—where that information identifies an individual or business or where it might allow someone to deduce their identity. The criminal sanction, which could be up to twoyears’ imprisonment, is an important addition to the confidentiality regime for personal information collected by the board. The confidentiality provisions are structured to allow both the sharing provided for within the clause—whether current or new flows—and the necessary exceptions in subsection (4).

Alun Michael: I strongly support my hon. Friend’s argument and the provisions in the Bill for the protection of individual data. They are absolutely right, as is the strengthening of the sanctions, but will the Minister confirm that it would not be right for people looking at the sharing of data in the public interest or for statistical purposes to say, “Oh, I was scared by the sanctions, so I thought it was safest not to bother considering how to share that information. It was safer to say no.”? Their obligation will be to balance the pros and cons and to consider the public interest adequately. The balance needs to be there, and should be tough on both sides of the equation.

John Healey: My right hon. Friend is right. A balanced judgment and a tough examination of both sides of the equation, as he put it, is required from the board, from Departments with which the board is discussing potential future administrative data-sharing arrangements and, ultimately, from Ministers. Parliament will have to scrutinise and agree any proposed extension of data-sharing arrangements, as well as make judgments on such arrangements and hold to account the cumulative decisions of Ministers and the proposals and operation of the board.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has brought me neatly on to consideration of the exceptions in subsection (4). We have heard in Committee and beyond the House arguments for restricting the exceptions, such as removing exceptions for court orders or in criminal investigations, as was proposed in some earlier amendments. I hope that hon. Members will see such proposals as unrealistic and wrong, but I appreciate that they may have been confused and misled by some of the briefings that they have received.
For instance, the Royal Statistical Society seems to have altered its position at different stages. When we first published the Bill, the society suggested that the confidentiality clause should be substantially reduced and simplified:
“so that all personal information collected under the authority of the Board...or transferred to the Board...must not be disclosed nor used for other purposes.”
That clearly does not strike the right balance. It probably then reviewed and refined its position when it commented on the Opposition amendments. The Society’s view was that data transfers were essential to support an efficient and effective statistical system. The key is to allow such transfers while ensuring that no breach of confidentiality will occur and that the data will be used only for statistical purposes. However, it said:
“amendments 155-174 will have some undesirable consequences.”
I think that the society has come now to a better, balanced judgment that I hope the Committee will want to take into account.
Clause 36(4) contains a list of exceptions, which draws on experience of existing practice, in the case of the Office for National Statistics, and on experience with confidentiality clauses in other legislation—for instance, the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005.

Julia Goldsworthy: Will the Financial Secretary confirm that there are extensions to the exemptions list that go beyond the existing situation?

John Healey: It is not clear which exceptions or exemptions the hon. Lady is concerned about. We have made that list to strike the right balance, as I have described, between encouraging greater administrative data sharing, where that is in the public interest, and ensuring that the proper safeguards are in place, because that will also be a matter of public concern and interest. The list is drawn from the experience of the arrangements that the ONS already has in place and, as I have cited, in respect of our approach in other legislation. If the hon. Lady has specific concerns about particular exceptions, I hope that she will contribute to this debate.
The confidentiality clause works with the data-sharing provisions later in the Bill to ensure, first, that our existing data flows can continue, secondly, that specific extensions can be granted, subject to the strict safeguards that I have already outlined, and, thirdly, that there are stronger sanctions for disclosure, meaning that breaches of the confidentiality obligation are punishable by up to two years imprisonment. We have designed the clause to get a balanced approach that takes account of the need for flexibility in future data sharing and the need for reassurance about the basis on which any personal data might be used by the board.
In doing this, we were, as the Committee would expect, conscious of the human rights implications of our proposals and sensitive to the need to strike an appropriate balance between the wider public interest in data sharing and the rights of the individual. The data-sharing clauses and the confidentiality clauses are considered, as has been confirmed, to be compatible with convention rights. The board will be subject to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which provides that public authorities should act in a way that is compatible with convention rights. In making any disclosure permitted by provisions of the Bill, the board will have to consider the compatibility of such disclosures with convention rights.
Since the publication of the Bill, the Information Commissioner’s office has told the Treasury that the Information Commissioner, who now also deals with data protection matters—which may formally have been the responsibility of the Data Protection Registrar—welcomes the creation of a criminal offence for the illegal disclosure of personal information under this clause, which he believes should act as a significant deterrent. He also welcomes the measures in the Bill that aim to ensure that any personal information required by the board for the production of statistics is tightly controlled and used only for the purposes required to exercise its functions. Overall, I understand that the Information Commissioner welcomes the recognition in the Bill of the importance of ensuring that personal information is used only where necessary and that confidentiality is respected. That is, as I explained at the start, the very essence of the balance that we are trying to strike.
I hope that I have given a helpful explanation of our principled approach in framing the Bill in general and clause 36 in particular. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Rob Marris: I urge my hon. Friend to look at clause 36(5), as I think that it is infelicitously worded. It says:
“for the purposes of statistical research.”
Grammatically, that qualifies—

John Butterfill: Order. I am finding it difficult tohear you.

Rob Marris: I am asking my hon. Friend tolook again at subsection (5) because its wording is infelicitous. The phrase grammatically qualifies the verb “held”, but I think that it was intended to qualify the noun “access”.

John Healey: As my hon. Friend knows, I always try to avoid being infelicitous. If he feels that I have been, I am perfectly prepared to consider his point. It does not strike me immediately as apt, but I will reflect on it.

Mark Hoban: Welcome to the Chair, Sir John. I shall respond to a couple of the Financial Secretary’s comments. The Conservatives have not sought to press any of the amendments to this clause that we debated—rather unsatisfactorily, because of time constraints—on Tuesday evening.
I return to one of the exemptions in clause 36 to probe the Financial Secretary’s thinking a bit more. He set out clearly the sanctions and safeguards that will give people who pass on personal information to the board confidence about its use, and listed three circumstances in which that personal information could be used. One use is for statistical purposes. I think that we all agree that that is why the data will be collected in the first place, but I was concerned about the third exemption. After due parliamentary process, the data collected by the board could be used by another Department under the exemption in subsection (4)(a). It concerns me to wonder for what purpose such data might be used. If subsection (4)(a) were qualified by the words “for statistical purposes”, I could understand and accept it, but the exemption is broad. It applies to disclosures
“required or permitted by any enactment”.
I shall give a scenario to which I should like the Financial Secretary to say how subsection (4)(a) will apply.
In the 2011 census, data will be collected on the population of the UK—their address, personal data and date of birth. In theory, that census data could be used by enactment as a cross-check against the national identity database to see whether the database is complete. If people knew that that was the case, they might be rather reluctant to provide data for the purpose of the census.
I do not see anything in subsection (4)(a) that would preclude, subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the cross-checking of census data against the national identity database. What limits will apply to that provision? It is quite broad in its potential use and could apply toany future enactment or allow data to be released retrospectively without the consent of the individuals concerned. Will he explain a bit more about how he foresees the provision being used? There are later exemptions in the Bill that will allow information to be passed on to Departments for specific reasons, but it would be useful for the Committee to have greater clarity about the extent to which he believes subsection (4)(a) will be used.

Julia Goldsworthy: My first concern is retrospection and whether information provided on the assumption that it will be confidential could be used for different purposes under a subsequent enactment. Can the provision be used for such purposes, or will there be no retrospection in that respect?

John Healey: The hon. Lady’s concern will be dealt with by the requirements in the Bill to strike the appropriate balance between greater data sharing and protection of individual confidentiality and data. Both of these will be ensured by the safeguards and sanctions contained in the Bill. Any extension of data sharing arrangements will have to be set out very clearly in any subsequently proposed order and will be scrutinised by Parliament under the affirmative procedure—I have ensured that such matters will be dealt with that way. I expect that such arrangements will be carefully monitored by the board and, indeed, by the House as they are implemented. That should give the hon. Lady the reassurance she seeks and allay the concerns that may lie behind her question.
To the hon. Member for Fareham, I repeat what I said at the end of our last sitting, which is that there are no time constraints on consideration of the Bill in Committee. Happily, the parties reached a shared view on programming the Committee stage. As I explained on Tuesday evening, Government Members were prepared to stay as long as necessary to give proper scrutiny to the clauses we were then considering. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that he has not when debating previous amendments made points that in general terms relate to clause 36, it seems to me appropriate, with your indulgence, Sir John, that they debated now. I do not understand his reiteration that time constraints are an issue.
Subsection (4)(a) is in the clause simply to take into account other Acts of Parliament that this House may pass that may affect the arrangements in the Bill. The limits on the extent of subsection (4)(a) are, in simple terms, the limits that are set by this House under other Acts of Parliament. I think if the hon. Gentleman pauses he will recognise that that is necessary in the context of the Bill; otherwise it could have legal precedence over any other Act of Parliament and intent of this House expressed in legislation. When we consider some of the clauses that relate to the Registrar General, we will examine an example of existing legislation that sets out certain conditions in which data may be shared between the Registrar General and, for example, the health service—in that case, patient records. The purpose of subsection (4)(a) is to accommodate the circumstances that arise if Parliament passes legislation that is relevant to the data sharing arrangements in the Bill but that the Bill is not designed to override.
I hope with that explanation all hon. Memberswill be prepared to allow this clause to stand part of the Bill.

Mark Hoban: Briefly, my concern is that the board and the statistical process might be used as a conduit for information to pass to Government Departments in a way that the people who supplied the data would not expect. The board may be used as a conduit for information to flow that may be inappropriate in the light of the reasons why the data were collected in the first place. I still have concerns about that and it may be an issue that we return to on Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Freedom of information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Healey: I will not detain the Committee long, but the clause is important because under it the board will be able to refuse to release personal information following a freedom of information request, whereas, in contrast, public authorities that have received personal information from the board might have to release it following such a request. I think that that might require some explanation and justification.
The clause does not mean that it will always be necessary for a public authority that holds such information to release it. Depending on the information in question, there might be reasons for not releasing it that are permitted under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. For example, in certain circumstances an authority could refuse to release information that identifies a living individual. The clause will allow historical information to continue to be passed to researchers and is consistent with the Government’s commitment to openness made in the 2000 Act.
The FOI Act gives any person the right to ask for, and be given, any information held by a public authority. It also sets out, however, a number of situations in which data are to be protected from release. One of those situations, which are called “exemptions” in the Act, is when there is a legal bar to data being released. The confidentiality obligation for personal information in clause 36 provides such a bar, as we have discussed, as it legally obliges the board and its employees not to pass personal information to others except in the limited cases set out.
As such, personal information held by the board will not have to be released under the FOI Act. That will help to ensure that survey respondents have confidence that personal information passed to the board is unlikely to be released. However, that provision must be balanced against the commitments to openness made in the FOI Act and the value to researchers of historical data. Clause 37 therefore sets out that when personal information is passed by the board to other public authorities, it will not automatically be exempt from release under freedom of information simply because of the confidentiality obligation. It may, however, be exempt from release on another basis, as I have said, such as in certain circumstances if it may identify a living individual.
To that extent, the clause replicates the current situation. For example census records, which are personal information, will continue to be passed by the board to the national archives in time for release after 100 years, and the clause ensures that the archives can continue to release historical census information in accordance with the Public Records Act 1958 and freedom of information obligations.
The Information Commissioner’s view is relevant to the clause. Overall, he welcomes the fact that the Bill recognises the importance of ensuring that personal information is used only when necessary, that confidentiality is respected and that the criminal offence of illegal disclosure of personal data will help to underpin the system.
Finally, Sir John, there has been some suggestion that the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 should be included in the clause. I am actively considering that and working with parliamentary counsel and the relevant Scottish authorities to determine what, if anything, needs to be done. I hope that the Committee will understand that should an amendment be required, I propose to table it on Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

Information relating to births and deaths etc

Mark Hoban: I beg to move amendment No. 163, in clause 39, page 17, line 6, leave out subsection (4).

John Butterfill: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 164, in clause 39, page 17, line 10, leave out subsection (5).
No. 165, in clause 39, page 17, line 12, leave out subsection (6).

Mark Hoban: These probing amendments were tabled to enable us to understand the process. I suspect that the clause was drafted so as to maintain the existing arrangements but I want to understand why that is, given that the role of the National Statistician and the Registrar General are being prised apart by the Bill. I understand why the National Statistician needs to receive information from the Registrar General but why will the board pass the data to the Department of Health? Why cannot the Registrar General pass it directly to the Department? What is the reason for routing it through the board?

John Healey: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions simply and specifically, as they refer to what appears to be the main concern about the clause. There will of course be circumstances in which the Registrar General, both now and when the role is separated from the office and function of the National Statistician, passes data directly to the health service. Information that could include name, date of birth, place of birth, usual address and other such data may go straight from the Registrar General to the health service. As the ONS is currently able to do, the statistics board can add to that data coding by post code, by ward and by administrative area. In other words, the statistics service may add further data that enrich what can then be passed to, and used by, the health service.
There are circumstances in which and data on which the ONS can add further analysis of a quality that is of value to the health service. The clause is designed to cover and make provision for circumstances in the future when the Registrar General and the National Statistician are no longer legally and operationally the same person.

Mark Hoban: I am content with my understanding of the rationale for the process through the board. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Information relating to NHS registration

Mark Hoban: I beg to move amendment No. 166, in clause 40, page 17, leave out lines 20 to 26 and insert—
‘(3) The information disclosed may not include any information which would allow the identification of an “individual”.’.

John Butterfill: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 167, in clause 40, page 17, line 30, leave out subsection (5).
No. 168, in clause 40, page 17, leave out lines 32 to 35 and insert—
‘(6) Section 36 does not permit the disclosure by the Board of any information received under this section.’.
No. 169, in clause 41, page 18, line 14, leave out subsection (5).

Mark Hoban: These are probing amendments through which we are attempting to understand the data flows through the system and to probe what information is required. Amendment No. 166 would delete subsection (3) and replace it with the provision stating that information about NHS registration can be passed but that it should not
“include any information which would allow the identification of an ‘individual’”.
 The amendment would reduce the detail of the information supplied in order to protect confidentiality.
I have a question about the amount and detail of the data supplied. Subsection (3)(d) will allow information about the history to be transferred. With reference to amendments Nos. 167 and 169, will the information be used for any purpose other than the production of the mid-term population statistics? Such statistics—in particular Slough’s problems estimating mid-term figures—have been a feature of debates in Committee and were a feature of the Second Reading debate.
Amendment No. 168 would remove subsection (6). Will the Minister explain how the exemptions relateto clause 36(4)(c) and (h) and how they apply toclause 40?

Brooks Newmark: I shall support my hon. Friend’s amendment unless the Minister can provide me with a little comfort about a concern that I have. I understand the Government’s objectives and the reasons for their proposals, but the Bill should not conflate statistics, which try to identify general trends, and personal information, which might identify individuals. I hope the Minister will reassure me that that will not happen.

Michael Fallon: I, too, support the amendment, because subsection (3) ranges extremely widely. The Minister tries to ensure that information about registrations between general practices—people moving from one general practice to another, or from one health authority area to another—is properly captured. The explanatory notes describe the process as the creation of an information gateway; I think they mean the creation of a power to ensure that the board still receives the information.
In subsection (3)(d), which the amendment covers, the information to be provided as part of the measurement of flows of people from one general practice to another includes the reasons for an individual’s cancellation or re-registration. There may be many reasons why one cancels one’s registration with one’s general practitioner, and they may have nothing to do with one’s relocation to a different part of the country. One may be unhappy with the performance of the general practice, for example. I am not sure that it is appropriate for the board to start piling up information about why people have moved. Surely the board needs only the statistical information that an individual has moved or has changed GP. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain why subsection (3) must go so far as to cover, in paragraph (d), the reasons for people registering or not registering.

John Healey: Clauses 40 and 41 provide for the Secretary of State for Health, public authoritiesor Welsh Ministers to share patient registration information with the board for the production of population statistics. To be clear, clause 40(4) makes it explicit that patient registration information does not include any information about the health, care or treatment of individuals.
Patient registration information is information about persons who are or who have been registered in any place in England or Wales as persons to whom primary medical services are provided. That may include, but is not limited to, information such as a person’s address, their date of birth, their gender or their NHS number. The provisions replicate the current data sharing arrangements within the Office for National Statistics.
It may be helpful to the Committee if I explain exactly what happens to such information. Patient registration information is collated and held in the national health service central register, which is currently maintained at the Office for National Statistics and is used primarily to manage the transfer of medical records between GP practices and between the NHS and the armed forces’ medical services. Statisticians in the ONS have access to that information, and that access enables the ONS to derive and estimate migration within England and Wales and between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The data covered by the clause will therefore allow greater monitoring and analysis of migration and population movements—something in which the Committee has taken an interest, as the hon. Member for Fareham said. I think that all Committee members want there to be better quality, more up-to-date data to assist in some important areas of policy-making.
Amendment No. 166 would prevent the Secretary of State or another public authority from disclosing tothe board any information that would allow the identification of an individual. That would mean that all information would have to be in an anonymised, non-identifying format. I hope that the hon. Member for Braintree will understand that the distinction he tried to draw between statistics on general trends and data on registration represents a conceptual difference, but in practice it is important to bring them together.

Brooks Newmark: I believe that I understand exactly what the Minister says, but my concern is that in trying to identify such trends, one should not use personal information that might end up identifying specific individuals.

John Healey: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. Although information will be processed at an individual level by the statistics board, only aggregate statistics will be published. The Bill introduces legal provisions to maintain the confidentiality of information and will penalise any breaches of those provisions.

Alun Michael: It is interesting to see the way in which the debate is going because it illustrates the importance of having absolute clarity about the tension between having the quality of information at the most local level and ensuring that confidentiality is protected in the way set out by the Minister. That is important because if one errs too far in one direction, one may find, as we did in the past, that information simply does not pick up what happens at the most local level, particularly in rural areas. The protection must be there so that we can be assured that data are used in an appropriate way to ensure that the interests of every area are properly analysed and understood.

John Healey: My right hon. Friend is right. In dealing with concerns about understanding flows of population, it is necessary for statisticians to have access to the data. The important question then is whether that takes place in circumstances that sufficiently safeguard the confidentiality of certain types of data and the uses to which they may be put. That is the essence of the debate that we are having this morning.
The reason is that, just like the ONS at present, the board will need to have access to identifiable information if it is going to continue to produce—let alone improve— useful and meaningful population statistics. Such statistics require the ability to identify all moves where an individual has registered a change of permanent address, thus enabling the board to identify which individuals should be counted as migrants and in what data periods, areas and population sub-groups. Individual records are required for matching and tracing migrants between separate reporting periods; research into understanding, for instance, patterns of migration by linking recent and older records is possible only if the two types of records can be matched individually.
It has become increasingly important for policy makers to be well informed about migration, both to monitor the pattern and trends in flows and to respond to changes in the position and impact of migrants within society and the economy.

Fiona Mactaggart: This aspect of the data caused some of the problems in Slough which I spoke to the Minister about, and part of the failure to estimate mid-year populations accurately is to do with such things. For example, young men in particular do not necessarily have a health record, as they tend not to register with GPs. Therefore, connecting all the pieces of information has significance, if only to statisticians, who can work out whether particular classes of people not registering and so on. That might help to improve the accuracy of some of our poor counts, with results in respect of the failings in our current population counts.

John Healey: My hon. Friend has become something of an expert in the field. She has powerfully made the case for the provisions, which we continue in clause 40. The clause is drafted to create a statutory gateway that will allow the board to continue to have access to patient registration information for the production of population statistics.
Amendments Nos. 167 and 169 would widen the scope of clauses 40 and 41 so that the patient registration information could be used by the board for any purpose. The clause would, therefore, not restrict how the information might be used by the board—although, clearly, when taken with amendment No. 166, the usefulness of the information for the board would be limited.
I have explained the Government’s intention, as part of the reforms, to transfer the national health service central register from the Office for National Statistics. Given that, placing the long-standing data-sharing arrangement on a statutory footing is necessary, so that the board can continue to use patient registration information for the production of important population statistics. I hope that that assures hon. Members.

Mark Hoban: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has talked through how the information can be used, but I still wonder whether there is any way in which less detail could be provided, while still achieving the objectives that the hon. Member for Slough referred to.
I was also struck by the Financial Secretary’s comments on subsection (5), which restricts the use to which the data can be put. The restriction is very clear. I am not sure that I would wish to remove it, but it is a tight restriction compared to the broad ability in clause 36(4)(a) for any enactment to be used to share the data. On the one hand, we have provisions that enable broad use, subject to legislation, and on the other, some tightly worded subsections restricting the use of data. There is a contradiction, which we need to explore later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42

Information held by HMRC

Mark Hoban: I beg to move amendment No. 170, in clause 42, page 18, line 36, leave out from ‘other’ to end of line 38.
This is another probing amendment on the ability of data to be released and shared, in this case between Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the board. I understand why the clause states:
“Subsection (1) does not authorise the disclosure of personal information”.
It then gives the exemption:
“other than personal information relating to the import or export of goods to or from the United Kingdom.”
I should be grateful to the Financial Secretary if he could explain why we need the exemption and why he seeks to qualify the general position on authorisation by reference to the subset of information that is collected by Revenue and Customs.

John Healey: In essence, the hon. Gentleman asks why we need this wording and this specific focus on import and export data, particularly if we are already sharing them. The answer lies in the implementation of section 18 of the Commissioners for Revenues and Customs Act 2005. That limited HMRC’s ability to share information, by laying down the general rule that HMRC may not disclose any information held or received by it in the course of its functions.
Since the 2005 Act came into force, officials have been examining the HMRC’s disclosures of data to ensure they are consistent with the rules laid down in the CRC Act. Those investigations have brought to light two occasions when information has been disclosed to the ONS and then fed into the compilation of national accounts, so it has that important function. 
The 2005 Act permits HMRC to disclose data in certain specified circumstances, one of which is where another provision authorises disclosure. That is similar to subsection (4)(a) in the previous clause. The clause will form such a provision to ensure that HMRC can lawfully share data with the new board in the same way as the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise shared data with the ONS. So it is intended to put beyond any doubt the basis for the necessary and current sharing of information that relates to import and export data.

Mark Hoban: Is the Financial Secretary suggesting that there was some doubt about the legality of the data sharing between HMRC and the ONS that the clause is needed to correct?

John Healey: As I have explained, there are two occasions specifically, when looking at the disclosures of data from HMRC, when it will be helpful to have greater clarity and certainty than we believe at present the 2005 Act offers. That is the basis for the provision that we have included in clause 42.

Mark Hoban: I think that clarification is helpful, as we are obviously clarifying the drafting of a previous Act. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Michael Fallon: I want to pursue more generally the concern raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham. The clause is very wide, and I fully understand what the Financial Secretary has just said. He is trying to replicate a power in the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, to ensure that the information that is sent to the ONS under that Act continues to be sent to the board. However, that is not quite what clause 42(1) would do. It refers to information in connection with
“any function of the Revenue and Customs.”
I have two concerns about that.
First, the restriction of that information is not contained in the clause itself but set out in the explanatory notes. Paragraph 165 states:
“It is intended that two categories of data will be disclosed under this provision”.
That does not reassurance us much. Presumably, the Financial Secretary could add to those categories, or a future Minister with new intentions could specify further categories of information to be disclosed. Can the Minister reassure me that the explanatory notes contain the existing categories that are disclosed and that it will not be possible to widen them further than is suggested by the intentions that are set out?
My second question is on a point recently raised by the hon. Member for Slough, who is sadly not in her place. I quite understand why personal information will not be disclosable under the clause—I welcome that—but the Financial Secretary has referred to one of the central problems that besets the ONS: the lack of comprehensive data on migration.
One of the key matters is the number of people entitled to national insurance cards and those who are registered and deregistered for them. At the moment, that seems a hazy area. Even though personal information cannot be disclosed, under the clause, can the board produce more accurate migration statistics by examining the data on the number of national insurance cards, or can it only examine data on the collection of national insurance contributions—in other words, the amount paid, rather than the number of cards issued?

John Healey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interest in the clause and his attempt to help the Committee understand the Government’s thinking.
The clause does indeed permit the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs or an officer of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to pass information held by HMRC to the board for use in connection with one or more of its statistical functions. It only permits the sharing of personal information—defined in clause 36, as data that can identify individuals or businesses—that relates to the import or export of goods. That is considered personal information because it can identify businesses and, in some cases, individuals who are sole traders.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks tempts me to stiffen the clarity and commitment in the explanatory notes. It is intended that two categories of data will be shared under the clause, both of which are currently shared. Any future Minister or Government could make amendments, as is the case with any legislation in any policy area.
The first category of data to which the provision will apply is
“summary data, including information on income tax and National Insurance contributions, which is currently provided by Revenue and Customs to ONS, to allow ONS to produce statistics, including estimates of the UK national income, as a part of their production of the UK National Accounts”.
Those data are not personally identifiable. They are less relevant to the future improvement of migration and population statistics than some of the proposals that the National Statistician is putting in place through her recent working group. If hon. Members want to pursue their concern about the quality of migration statistics, I refer them to the group’s report.
The second category of data is
“information relating to the import or export of goods to and from the UK, which is currently passed from Revenue and Customs to ONS to allow ONS to produce statistics. ONS use the data to identify businesses to survey about import and export prices, and in the analysis of the results of such surveys. Results from ONS’s surveys feed into indices of the prices charged to producers (part of the measurement of the value added by UK manufacturers), and into analyses of the UK balance of payments in the National Accounts.”
That information is considered personal, as defined under the Bill, because individuals can be identified from it. If the ONS did not receive that information from HMRC, it would need to survey many more businesses to find out which of them import and export goods. All hon. Members will appreciate that that would significantly increase the survey burden on businesses. Furthermore, the quality of the statistics that ultimately come into the national accounts would be impaired. On that basis, I hope that hon. Members will accept the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 44

Power to authorise disclosure to the Board

Mark Hoban: I beg to move amendment No. 171, in clause 44, page 19, line 20, at end insert—
‘(4A) notwithstanding subsection (4), any personal information acquired under section 44 cannot be disclosed.’.
Clause 44 gives powers to the Treasury to make regulations to enable or require public authorities to disclose information to the board. I understand why such powers may be required: to reduce the costs of national statistics and improve their comprehensiveness and accuracy. There is certainly great support from the business community for measures that seek to reduce the cost of data collection when there are alternative routes. That underpins part of the argument forclause 42.
The amendment is designed to address concerns about creating information gateways. I am worried that we are creating the potential for data to flow from the public authority to the board and then, throughthe provisions of clauses 36 and 44, to another Government body. Is it appropriate for the board to be used as a conduit in that way? Would it not be far better for the information gateway to be directed, when that is required and necessary, between the public authority and the Government Department that might use the data?

Brooks Newmark: The way I read it, clause 44 contains quite wide powers for the Treasury to authorise the disclosure of information where disclosure would otherwise be illegal or ultra vires. Although that information can only be gathered for statistical purposes and cannot be used for any other reasons, I support amendment No. 171, which clarifies a point about which I was concerned before by seeking to ensure that any personal information obtained in that way cannot be disclosed. That is important, because at the moment, under subsection (6)(b), the Treasury can make regulations containing “consequential and supplementary” provisions, which could authorise further disclosure by the board, even where that would otherwise be illegal, as mentioned in subsection (7)(b).
In the absence of amendment No. 171, I am concerned that the Treasury could, effectively, make regulations and not be subject to any scrutiny, thereby empowering the board to collect personal information and then to disclose it, even where it would otherwise be illegal. That sweeping power should, at least, contain a ban on the disclosure of personal information, as amendment No. 171 provides.

Rob Marris: Would not the hon. Gentleman’s remarks be better addressed to the debate on clause 48, titled “Power to authorise disclosure by the Board”? We are discussing clause 44—and amendments thereto—which is titled “Power to authorise disclosure to the Board: Scotland”

Brooks Newmark: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I could have done it either way, but I decided to raise the point in relation to clause 44.

John Healey: Before dealing with specific amendments and points raised by the hon. Members for Fareham and for Braintree about amendmentNo. 171, I should like to say that clause 44 is the central clause relating to the power to authorise disclosure of information to the board. It is worth emphasising that the aim of the clause and the Bill is to ensure that information can be shared to provide better services and better policies to support those public services for citizens and businesses and that it can be used in other instances where that is in the public interest. We are creating a framework that will ensure the continued sharing of data between the ONS and other parts of the Government for the purpose of statistical production and analysis. We are also creating a mechanism to allow for increased data sharing between the ONS and other parts of the Government, and vice versa, where that is for the sole purpose of statistical production—and only where that sharing is judged to be in the public interest.
The specific extensions of access will be agreed through secondary legislation that will be subjectto parliamentary scrutiny through the affirmative procedure and will therefore require the approval of the House. I believe that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and other Committee members have recognised, there is in principle a clear case for stronger sharing of administrative data. Such sharing can improve the quality of statistical data and analysis and improve our ability to make and judge the impact of policy. Re-use of data means that statisticians can produce richer statistics and better analyses, often without needing to survey the same topic again. It also has the potential to bring benefits in reducing the burden on those responsible for completing, or required to complete, the surveys on which many of our official statistics depend.
The 2005 report by the Better Regulation Task Force, “Regulation—Less is More. Reducing Burdens, Improving Outcomes”, recommended increased data sharing between Departments to reduce the intrusion on business and the complexity and the time required for businesses to complete surveys. The Confederation of British Industry echoed a recommendation that Philip Hampton made in his 2005 review:
“It would, in principle, be helpful if government departments and regulators could hare information to reduce duplication”.
As part of the Whitehall-wide plan to reduce administrative burdens, the ONS has committed, as part of its simplification plan, to making £10 million worth of reductions in the burden of business by 2015. Almost two thirds of those savings—approximately£6 million—are expected to come from the greater use of administrative data for statistical purposes in place of the survey returns from respondents that are currently required.
The other principal case for greater data sharing is to deal with declining survey response rates. The response rates in many of the ONS’s major surveys have declined in recent years. The general household survey had an 83 per cent. response rate when it was introduced in 1971, but that response had fallen to 72 per cent. by 2005. As survey response rates decline, the chances become higher that the results will be distorted and less reliable and will not truly represent the state of the British population.
Enhancing the sharing of administrative data will help us to deal with some of the problems with declining survey response rates, and will reduce the cost to the Government of conducting the surveys. That can help in three ways. First, it can help statisticians to compensate for lower response rates by allowing them to augment the information that is available for analysis. Secondly, it can help statistical services to target future surveys at those who are less likely to respond, because it will allow them to define more clearly and accurately the groups in which response rates are a concern and to concentrate attentionand activity on them. Thirdly, the greater use of administrative data might, in the long term, offer an alternative to survey activity.
Our approach provides for extensions to currentdata sharing under the powers in clauses 44 to 50. In broad terms, there could be increased data sharing between the board and other public authorities where regulations are made to permit such sharing. Of course, any such regulations would be subject to further scrutiny and approval by Parliament. In practice, the discussion and preparation of potential regulations will be between the board and Departments, but, importantly, Ministers will be required to give formal agreement prior to the laying of any such order before the House or any devolved Administration.
We adopted that approach to allow the system to evolve. Data sets might be created that could bring significant benefits to statistical analysis if they are linked with those produced by other Departments. Clause 44 and the following clauses will permit further sharing under regulations. We are doing that through regulations rather than primary legislation to allow flexibility in the system for future evolution. The system must be able to adapt to future statistical resources and needs. It must also allow scope for new indicators to be developed that can provide a more accurate, up-to-date, comprehensive and meaningful description of the UK through the statistics and analyses that we produce.
Amendment No. 171 would prevent the board from sharing with others information received under the regulations, but, in general, the circumstances in which the board is able to share data that it has received from other public authorities under the enabling clause are limited. As we discussed, clause 36 includes the limited list of exceptions to the obligation of confidentiality. Clause 44 restricts the exceptions further, so unlessthe regulations make provision to permit further disclosure, the board will not be able to share such data in pursuit of its functions or with approved researchers as a matter of course. It is important that the public have confidence that their personal information will be held securely. Under subsection (4), the board will not therefore be able to share data that it has acquired through the enabling clause in pursuit of its function or with approved researchers.
The provisions leave the board able to disclosethe information only in the remaining, limited, circumstances covered in clause 36. To allow sharing in those circumstances is sensible and necessary, for reasons similar to those that we discussed during our consideration of clause 36. It is right that the board should be able lawfully to share information, for example in response to a court order, to comply witha community obligation, or to aid a criminal investigation, or to release information that has already been lawfully released. We do not want to make release of data in those circumstances a criminal offence.
There are occasions when the board needs to share data with others. The clause appropriately captures those circumstances. The hon. Member for Fareham indicated that his was a probing amendment; I hope that I have given him sufficient reassurance not to feel the need to take it further.

Mark Hoban: I thank the Minister for his remarks.
I would like to complete the CBI quotation that the Minister used earlier. The CBI said:
“However, the information provided must only be used for the same type of purpose by all bodies and careful and detailed consideration must be given to concerns related to data protection and privacy.”
That strand has been running through the debate. I would argue that if information is held by another public body, that body could be served a court order to release it, rather than people going through the board or the Office for National Statistics. I understand the Minister’s point and the rationale behind data sharing, but we need to examine more carefully how we restrict data that are shared, to ensure that they are released predominantly for statistical use, with certain specified exemptions. That may be a theme that we return toat a later date. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Kevin Brennan.]

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes pastTen o’clock, till this day at One o’clock.